Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] livepatch: Remove reliable stacktrace check in
 klp_try_switch_task()
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1531382706-9732-1-git-send-email-kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180713183756.gfddtn3gbwkwpqbj@treble>
From:   Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:05:56 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180713183756.gfddtn3gbwkwpqbj@treble>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <dbd9bdf6-7cb1-cde1-5f7d-d3a5449c560d@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Saturday 14 July 2018 12:07 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> We bail out during patch registration for architectures, those don't
>> support reliable stack trace.
> 
> Does anybody know if that change was intentional?  I thought the plan
> was to allow non-consistency-model arches to still use livepatch, and
> that they'd just have to 'force' patches to completion instead.  That
> seems a little more forgiving.
> 

The initial proposal was to allow 'force' feature on architectures
without HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE support and use pr_notice() to warn
user about the non-availability of consistency model. It was argued
against, as it will encourage people to use it as an alternative instead
of adding HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE support to the kernel.

-- 
cheers,
Kamalesh.